Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/18/2017 in all areas

  1. 9 points
    Hello everyone:wave: I'm from outer suburbs of Sydney....Hawkesbury. I have recently started my journey into getting my RPL... it's been my dream since I was 11yrs old. Getting ready to do my very first solo and I'm pretty nervous Looking forward to taking part in this forum. Cheers
  2. 8 points
    A new series has begun on Channel ONE (in WA ), and it appears to be largely dealing with GA accidents. I watched the 1st program of the series last night, wherein a Cessna 207 collided with terrain during marginal weather conditions in coastal Alaska. I thought the NTSB, (US), were presented in a very fair way, and the findings were, unfortunately, that for reasons unknown the pilot flew a serviceable aircraft into terrain. Again, another weather related accident, but one of many in Alaska, which has a combination of high terrain and rapidly changing weather. With this combination, being IFR qualified/current, and in an IFR equipped aircraft, may help, but is not the full solution. Only staying VFR is going to keep one alive. I'd recommend watching this series as the issues are far more relevant to RAAus and GA than the original 'Accident' series.
  3. 8 points
    I learned a long time ago, longevity flying Ultralights requires knowing when not to fly and basically, that comes with experience, unfortunately, experience comes from doing and some don`t get a chance to learn from their mistakes, their first is their last. After 35 years of flying Ultralights, so that I maintain my ability, I will fly in wind conditions unsuitable and dangerous to a novice pilot but I`ve learned when not to fly and will not fly just to find out if I can. Frank.
  4. 8 points
    I`ve probably taken more people flying than anyone else, here in Australia, I`m still prepared to do so and I`m fully aware of the consequences; I take it as a privilege that those I take flying are prepared to put their lives` in my hands. Before we go flying, I brief everyone on the fact that the aircraft is an Ultralight aircraft, it is a real aircraft and things can and do something go wrong; I finish briefing by adding, that all I can guarantee is that I will give them the best of my ability, if they can`t accept that ( from memory, only 2 did not ) I won`t take them; For anyone under 18 years of age, I want their parents permission (always granted), therefore, those I take up have made an informed concious decision to fly with me; In the past, things have gone wrong! I`ve had several engine failures but never so much as scratched myself or someone with me and I have never even had the slightest hint of a lawsuit...Could it happen??? I`m old school, I believe in personal responsibility, I also believe that we are not creating a better society if we all hide under a rock (figure of speech) because we might be sued: All those I take flying come to me, I don`t go looking for them and as far as I`m concerned, we need to go back to personal responsibility, lawsuits, mostly make the Lawers rich! By the way! I was at the first meeting, where we discussed if we were prepared to pay a bit more for A.U.F.now RA-Aus membership fees to have insurance for all members...We voted YES! Initially it was only third party insurance. Frank......... A.U.F/RA-Aus member, 993.
  5. 7 points
    Aparrently it is because of some social media posts by recreational pilots saying they are going to boycott asic, they are increasing policing. This post is not to be taken seriously, anyone taking this post seriously doesn't know me very well. To put it plainly this post is a joke! (Well it is meant to be one, take it as you may)
  6. 7 points
    Sadly you’re example is exactly what the world has become. A society of victims with no personal responsibility. Any reasonable person should completely understand any activity they are about to undertake and not live in a world of its not my fault, especially if they sign a wavier. Maybe I just expect to much of society.
  7. 6 points
  8. 5 points
    After some consideration, I thought this statement of Steve`s worthy of some comment and possibly some discussion on my points. Boring!..."Boring" is the last thing I want out of my flying or for those who want to fly with me! The ultralight (rag and tube) movement was started primarily as a fun, affordable way to fly for those who didn`t want to or couldn`t afford to do it any other way, me being one of them. Fun!... The fun bit comes in when the pilot knows how to make the flight fun and ends it with a smile on their face and if carrying a passenger the passenger is smiling too. Safety!...To me, safety is "No Accident!", not how you achieve it!...I might make it look to others that I`m taking it casually but in fact, I take it very seriously and everything I do is calculated in advance! when I`m flying, I`m always well ahead of the aircraft. Daring Maneoveres!...I don`t consider any of the maneuvers I do, "Daring", I consider the ability to perform them absolutely necessary for my safety. How to fly!... I`ve learnt what works best for me and my situation and at this stage, i`ve no intention of doing it any other way! Frank.
  9. 5 points
    I have flown one wing of my Drifter into a BIG thermal and it nearly turned me upside down - luckily I was over 2,000 feet so it wasn't a problem (apart from people asking me what the nasty smell was when I was putting the Drifter in the shed)... I am unreservedly a Fair Weather Pilot - I would not even consider flying the Drifter in the middle of the day in summer - not fun, not comfortable, and more than a little dangerous there are old pilots, and bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots. btw, my wife put a sticker on the dash of my Drifter after I flew a little too low over our house (on 34 acres) - it reads: SHOWOFFS DIE
  10. 4 points
    Comments on: Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Part 149) Regulations 2018 Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and none of the following is reliable legal advice; If you want to know where you stand, get a copy of this legislation, and a copy of the Recreational Aviation Australia Limited Constitution and applicable documents to this legislation, and go see a specialist lawyer. These comments follow a quick skim of he legislation document, and are intended just for discussion, not as reference material, and may be varied after this date. Link to the Regulations: Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Part 149) Regulations 2018 The link shows the regulations have been through both Houses of Parliament, and have been signed off by the Governor-General, becoming law on July 14, 2018. The Austlii Federal Register of Legislation lists it as "In Force - Latest version - F2018L010030. On this basis, I'm leaving the effective date at July 14 in the comments on this post, HOWEVER, Please note Jim's comments #13. I don't have any reason to doubt him, so it could well be that the effective date moves out. Certainly if I was in the Senate I would be asking for the regulations to be torn up and a fresh start made. Comments (Clauses from the document are in Italics) In the draft stage these were known as CASA Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Part 149, Part 149 fitting neatly on the end of the CASRs. It would be interesting to know why these regulations were separated from their logical place. As we know, in the mid 1980s, State and Federal governments became concerned about the potential cost to taxpayers of multiple, and large, public liability claims, saw themselves as soft target and began offloading liabilities. By far the most successful example of this was the State road authorities handing over registration of motor vehicles to motor vehicle dealers. Victoria closed down its Department of Labour and Industry almost overnight and stopped factory inspections, and the issuing of “tickets” for cranes, chains and machinery. Many sporting bodies no longer had legislation to comply with, so they established their own. However, by 1998 the State and Federal Ministers set out to address the rump of people who were not insuring themselves, or thought Industry standards and codes were “optional”, and we saw a rash of “Safety” legislation such as the Victoria’s Road Safety (Vehicles) Regulations 1999, which made some key Codes of Practice mandatory, and set penalties for non-compliance, It could be coincidence, but I suspect the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 Part 149 were intended to be part of that general tightening up of loose cannons, and it seems to read that way. Many members of this forum have complained about being subjected to more and more regulations, and I’ve kept reminding them that they were only just discovering the old regulations they should have been complying with all along. This is the big change; these are new regulations, and there will be a lot of them after the ASAO have realized their obligations and set to work catching up to July 14. That’s the date this legislation applies from, and prior to that date, your ASAO should have provided you with notification, and all the documents required by CASA. If the ASAO has failed to do this make a note of the date, particularly if you are involved in an accident or incident from July 14 until you are notified of the rules you have to follow. That may save you a lot of money. While ignorance of the law is not excuse, it helps if a law wasn’t in place when the accident occurred. Part 149 Approved Self Administering Aviation Organisations When governments set out to off load liability, the cleanest way to do this is to let industry and/or people run their own affairs, assume all risks and make their own codes of practice, benchmark standard and rules, to manage those risks, and assist Courts in deciding whether safe standards were being practiced when an accident occurred. Sometimes governments accidently re-assume risk; for example there is a world of difference between the word “Approved” which is used in this legislation and “Recognised” which is an arms length word when referring to a Self Administering body. 149.010 CASA may issue a Manual of Standards for this Part (a) Required to be prescribed by the Part 149 Manual of Standards (b) Necessary of convenient to be prescribed for carrying out of giving effect to this Part. If CASA do issue a Manual of standards, then what is the purpose of a Self Administering Organisation. Their Manual effectively imposes Government regulation all the way down to the Participants, so the government reassumes the risk 149.085 (b) The ASAO must comply with any direction given to the ASAO, or obligation imposed on the ASAO, by CASA under these regulations. Re-assumption of risk – effectively the directives and obligations are being imposed on members by the government body; the ASAO is not self- administering. Any error, confusion inadequacy etc. opens the government up to being a defendant. 149.110 (1) A change to an ASAO’s exposition must be approved by CASA under regulation 149.115 before the change is made. Re-assumption of risk; the ASAO is prevented from self-administering, becoming a superfluous cost to members. 149.120 (1) If CASA is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of aviation safety, CASA may, by written notice given to an ASAO, direct the ASAO to change the ASAO’s exposition. Re-assumption of risk; the ASAO is prevented from self-administering. (2) CASA may, by written notice given to an ASAO, direct the ASAO to remove any of the key personnel of the ASAO from the person’s position. [subject to some CASA definitions] Re-assumption of risk; the ASAO is prevented from self-administering. 149.195 Organisation and Personnel Re-assumption of risk; the ASAO is prevented from self-administering. CASA is reserving the right to dictate the number and type of personnel. 149.205 Re-assumption of risk; the ASAO is prevented from self-administering. CASA is dictating qualifications, but not setting a minimum standard. 149.210 Re-assumption of risk; the ASAO is prevented from self-administering. CASA is dictating qualifications, but not setting a minimum standard. 149.270 Re-assumption of risk; the ASAO is prevented from self-administering. CASA is dictating the nature of an SMS, and so is legally responsible for any mistakes. 149.275 Re-assumption of risk; the ASAO is prevented from self-administering. 149.280 Re-assumption of risk; the ASAO is prevented from self-administering. 149.285 Re-assumption of risk; the ASAO is prevented from self-administering. 149.290 Re-assumption of risk; the ASAO is prevented from self-administering. The safer alternative, is some direction is being suggested, is to provide a set of Model Rules, which are not obligatory. This way, the government is responsible for every mistake. SUB PART 149F – Expositions (a) (i) For each of the ASAO’s key personnel, the following information: (e) A description of the ASAO’s Safety Management System required by regulation 149.270 (f) A description of the ASAO’s Audit and Surveillance system required by regulation 149.275 (g) the ASAO’s aviation administration and enforcement rules You’ll recall the howling down of Ed Herring when he tried to employ a person with SMS experience, to write a fully comprehensive SMS, and the subsequent SMS produced by RAA. (f) is really the compliance and enforcement policy which in my opinion threw all the legal responsibilities onto the CFIs for the students they signed off. Robust and Survivable policies and systems for (e), (f) and (g) needed to have been communicated to all members before July 14, so that members could be complying with them on July 14, when the first accidents and incidents under the new regulations could have been occurring. 149.345 An ASAO must not contravene a provision of the ASAO’s exposition This would be a reasonable example of a requirement on an ASAO (leaving out any conditions which CASA may have “required”). The way it reads is that the ASAO writes it’s exposition, then is required by law to live by it. 149.400 (1) An ASAO must not reject an application by a person for an authorization to undertake an activity administered by the ASAO on grounds other than the eligibility criteria set out in the ASAO’s aviation administration and enforcement rules. Where this conflicts with the ASAO’s Constitution, Special/Emergency meetings should have been held to ensure no conflict by July 14, or an urgent bulletin of intent to change should have been advised to members. The ASAO by now needs to have considered, and have rules in place for eligibility, including assessment of members with disabilities etc. which may not prevent them from flying. GENERAL A lot of Strict Liability penalty clauses for the ASAO. The standard of personnel required may result in a much higher salary bill. Exposition, or an ASAO means: (a) The set of documents approved by CASA under regulation 149.080 in relation to the ASAO, or: (b) If the set of documents is changed under regulation 149.115 or 149.120, or in accordance with the process mentioned in paragraph 149.340 (i) – the set of documents as changed. Hopefully all ASAO members have been quiet over the last few days reading their new ASAO documents and rules. From the members point of view, if the government has re-assumed legal liability in some clauses, that gives the member a powerful fellow defendant in the case of an accident, but a likely outcome is confusion. I’m not quite sure just how these regulations got through both houses of parliament, but no doubt there were extended periods of consultation where members could have made submissions, and local members of both houses could have been contacted. And remember, this is just my take on the new regulations; you are entitled to an entirely different view.
This leaderboard is set to Melbourne/GMT+11:00